Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

IIP

Showing 1–16 of 328 results

  • How to evaluate the patentability of a multiple dependent claim

    August / September 2023
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 480

    Abstract: A patent’s claims can get confusing, particularly when a patent’s dependent claims have multiple dependencies — a popular claim drafting format in other countries, but a rather expensive pursuit in the United States. The director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office might agree after stepping in to address how the Patent Trial and Appeal Board should evaluate the patentability of a multiple dependent claim. This article untangles the director’s finding. Nested Bean, Inc. v. Big Beings USA Pty. Ltd., IPR No. 2020-01234 (PTO Feb. 24, 2023).

    Read More

  • Only if it’s human – Setting the copyright standard for works with AI-generated content

    August / September 2023
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 579

    Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) is disrupting a wide range of industries, including those involving the textual, visual and audio arts. It’s little surprise, then, that the U.S. Copyright Office has seen an increase in applications for copyright protection for AI-generated works. In response, the office released its first formal guidance regarding works containing material generated by AI in March 2023. This article summarizes the guidance, concluding that the future isn’t bright for works created solely by AI, but prospects are better for works that are merely AI-assisted.

    Read More

  • PTO director issues critical IPR clarification

    August / September 2023
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 617

    Abstract: The director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office recently addressed confusion over how the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) should determine whether to institute an inter partes review (IPR) of a patent when parallel litigation is already proceeding in federal district court. This article reviews the opinion, which makes clear that, while it’s possible to obtain an IPR in such circumstances, it won’t be easy. CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc., IPR No. 2022-01242 (PTO Feb. 27, 2023).

    Read More

  • A slicing opinion – Court cuts trademark registration for Gruyere cheese

    August / September 2023
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 829

    Abstract: Some Swiss and French cheesemakers recently ran into a brick wall when they attempted to obtain a trademark for the term GRUYERE. There was widespread agreement among the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) and two federal courts that the term is generic and therefore ineligible for trademark protection. This article covers the court’s review of the claim. A short sidebar highlights the trial court’s reliance on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s standard of identity when determining whether the term GRUYERE was generic. Interprofession du Gruyere; Syndicat Interprofessionnel du Gruyere. v. U.S. Dairy Export Council; Atalanta Corporation; Intercibus, Inc., No. 22-1041 (4th Cir. March 3, 2023).

    Read More

  • Dictionary finishes third in patent claim construction

    June / July 2023
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 444

    Abstract: Dictionaries have their place, but when it comes to interpreting the meaning of patent terms, that place generally isn’t first. This article reviews a case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in which it laid out just when the dictionary may play a role in such “claim construction.” Grace Instrument Indus., LLC v. Chandler Instruments Co., LLC, No. 21-2370 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 12, 2023).

    Read More

  • Minimal creativity required to secure copyright protection

    June / July 2023
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 535

    Abstract: A dispute between two testing companies is the latest example of the bar for how much creativity is necessary to secure copyright protection. This article reviews the case and the court’s reasoning behind it finding that the plaintiff’s creative choices merited copyright protection. ACT, Inc. v. Worldwide Interactive Network, Inc., No. 21-5889, -5907, -6155 (6th Cir. Aug. 23, 2022).

    Read More

  • Amended trademark registration raises suspicion

    June / July 2023
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 626

    Abstract: Can a trademark holder facing a cancellation proceeding avoid judgment by simply deleting goods from its registration? The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) recently addressed this question for the first time. This article summarizes the TTAB’s conclusion that a respondent couldn’t moot the proceeding and avoid judgment as to deleted goods by deleting certain goods subject to the cancellation without the written consent of the petitioner. Ruifei (Shenzhen) Smart Technology Co., Ltd. v. Shenzhen Chengyan Science and Technology Co, Ltd., Cancellation No. 92077931 (TTAB Jan. 12, 2023); https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92077931&pty=CAN&eno=19.

    Read More

  • Whose idea was this? Determination of patent inventorship issue requires trial

    June / July 2023
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 864

    Abstract: In patent law, the line between actual contributions to an invention and “more prosaic” contributions to the process can be difficult to draw. This article covers a recent ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that drives this home. A brief sidebar looks at why an overwhelming amount of evidence wasn’t enough for summary judgment. Plastipak Packaging, Inc. v. Premium Waters, Inc., No. 21-2244 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 19, 2022).

    Read More

  • Federal Circuit finds genus didn’t anticipate species

    April / May 2023
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 445

    Abstract: Does the disclosure of a chemical genus render all of the species within it “inherently obvious” and therefore unpatentable? Not always, as the challenger in Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. learned. This article discusses the court’s finding that the class at issue didn’t meet the “at once envisage” standard for an invention to be inherently anticipated. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., No. 21-2121 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 29, 2022).

    Read More

  • Challenger, beware – PTO director sanctions abuse of IPR process

    April / May 2023
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 578

    Abstract: Well-known technology giant Intel has been at war with a patent holding company for years. Recently, a new company inserted itself into the proceedings, apparently hoping to cash in. In an unusual move, the director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) got involved in the case, OpenSky Industries, LLC v. VLSI Technology LLC. This article highlights how things went downhill for the newcomer from there. OpenSky Industries, LLC v. VLSI Technology LLC, IPR No. 2021-01064 (PTO Dir. Oct. 4, 2022).

    Read More

  • TKO: Standing argument in copyright case falls

    April / May 2023
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 656

    Abstract: A copyright owner can’t give someone an exclusive enforceable right in a live event after the event has already occurred, right? That’s what the defendants in Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Griffith recently contended. But their argument fell short in light of some special circumstances. This article reviews the court’s finding that copyright law allows an owner to sue for infringement of an unregistered copyright as long as it registers the copyright within three months of the broadcast. Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Griffith, No. 21-6088 (6th Cir. Sept. 21, 2022).

    Read More

  • When similar trademarks don’t create likelihood of confusion

    April / May 2023
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 833

    Abstract: The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) recently snuffed out opposition to a trademark registration for the mark “SMOKES.” To the surprise of some, it determined that consumers were unlikely to confuse it with the existing mark “SMOK.” This article reviews how the board distinguished between the two seemingly similar marks in Shenzhen IVPS Technology Co. Ltd. v. Fancy Pants Products, LLC. A brief sidebar highlights the TTAB’s finding that Shenzhen didn’t establish a family of marks. Shenzhen IVPS Technology Co. Ltd. v. Fancy Pants Products, LLC, Opp. No. 91263919 (TTAB Oct. 31, 2022).

    Read More

  • Game on! Ninth Circuit revives trade dress infringement claim

    February / March 2023
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 441

    Abstract: Two competing companies created their own three-foot-wide versions of the popular game “four-in-a-row” or “horizontal checkers.” P&P Imports (P&P) was trying to claim trade dress in the design of its four-in-a-row apparatus and color scheme. This article summarizes the ensuing trade dress dispute between P&P and another gaming company, and the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit describing the proper standard for “secondary meaning.” P and P Imports LLC v. Johnson Enterprises LLC, DBA Tailgating Pros, Nos. 21-55013; -55323 (9th Cir. Aug. 24, 2022).

    Read More

  • Product-by-process analysis dooms challenged patent

    February / March 2023
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 548

    Abstract: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has invalidated a previously issued patent based on what it deemed a “product-by-process” claim. This article reviews the court’s finding that it wasn’t enough that the process part of the claim was different from existing processes — the product part also needed patentable differences. Kamstrup A/S v. Axioma Metering UAB, No. 21-1923 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 12, 2022).

    Read More

  • DMCA development – Standard for removal of digital copyright info comes into focus

    February / March 2023
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 637

    Abstract: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is making it tough for digital copyright holders to allege violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) based on the removal of copyright management information (CMI). In doing so, the court agreed with other appellate courts that a plaintiff must establish “double scienter” by the defendant. This article reviews the court’s decision. Victor Elias Photography, LLC v. Ice Portal, Inc., No. 21-11892 (11th Cir. Aug. 12, 2022).

    Read More

  • Clarifying patent law’s recapture bar

    February / March 2023
    Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 847

    Abstract: Patent applicants sometimes amend their original applications in response to a patent examiner’s rejection — for example, adding or withdrawing elements so that the invention isn’t obvious and, thus, unpatentable. Such amendments can have long-standing effects, though, as one inventor learned the hard way when he tried to obtain a reissue patent. This article reviews the court’s ruling, which is a strong reminder that deliberately limiting patent claims will preempt the possibility of recapture in a patent reissue. A short sidebar highlights how a defective inventor declaration also doomed the reissue application. In re McDonald, No. 21-1697 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 10, 2022).

    Read More